Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9077 total)
631 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (5 members, 626 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,035 Year: 5,147/6,534 Month: 567/794 Week: 58/135 Day: 4/6 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 118 of 377 (612510)
04-16-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by SavageD
04-16-2011 1:48 PM


Re: common design
Example: if were to start my own line of designer clothes, for each garment I make I would probably leave my signature on it to symbolize that the garment was fashioned by me.

Sure - so that your product could be distinguished from products made by other designers.

But what if you were the only person who had ever learned, or ever would learn. how to make clothes? Is there really still a need for you to "brand" your products? I mean, just the fact that they're clothes would be proof that you made them, because you're the only tailor who has ever existed and will ever exist.

So, unless you're asserting a universe of polytheism, where gods are competing amongst themselves to produce organisms, there's no reason to expect the singular creator of all life on Earth to have signed anything.

Why does every living thing require dna, why not some other mechanism for information?

Well, not every living thing requires DNA. There are RNA viruses, for instance, that have no DNA at all.

Every-things intertwined, if you remove one of these, the entire ecosystem falls apart.

Not always. Hardly ever, in fact - ecologies are much more resilient than you've been led to believe. I mean, over Earth's history, more than 99% of all the species that have ever lived have gone extinct; if the removal of an element of an ecology was enough to collapse the entire ecosystem, there wouldn't be a surviving ecosystem on Earth. Countless billions of species have gone extinct without a trace, but ecosystems survive. Some niches are just too good to go unfilled.

The amount of designers won't really matter.

Well, it does matter, because you've specified a common designer. That can only be consistent with one designer - if one designer designed this, and another designer designed that, then this and that can't be said to have a common designer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by SavageD, posted 04-16-2011 1:48 PM SavageD has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Jon, posted 04-16-2011 3:52 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 125 of 377 (612521)
04-16-2011 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Jon
04-16-2011 3:52 PM


Re: A Funny Backstitch
If we took all of the products and compared them, if such a signature existed, it would show itself as being a commonality present in every product designed.

Dean Kamen invented a kind of kidney dialysis machine, the Segway motor scooter, and a thought-controlled prosthetic arm.

Could you identify Dean Kamen's signature in these three products? Please be specific.

I think that if we accept the rest of the design argument just for the sake of playing along, then sweeping commonalities in living things certainly would seem to indicate a single designer (at least for life).

I would say that the sweeping differences indicate multiple designers - clearly the guy who did "plants" wasn't on the "mammals" team.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Jon, posted 04-16-2011 3:52 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Jon, posted 04-16-2011 4:25 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 129 of 377 (612530)
04-16-2011 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Jon
04-16-2011 4:25 PM


Re: A Funny Backstitch
I don't even know if there is one; but Dean and his products are irrelevant to the discussion.

Not at all. As an immediate and more approachable example of common design of disparate functions, it's entirely relevant and probative.

You wouldn't just be trying to do your standard dodge and run, would you, Jon? I mean, why do you even bother replying to my posts if you're going to immediately turn tail and run from the discussion?

I mean, really. What was your intent when you replied to my post? It wasn't directed at you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't reply, but surely it wasn't your intention to beg out of the discussion after two posts, was it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Jon, posted 04-16-2011 4:25 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Jon, posted 04-16-2011 8:34 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 130 of 377 (612531)
04-16-2011 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Buzsaw
04-16-2011 6:11 PM


Re: common design
Designed things like submarines, automobiles and aircraft do all require power plants, steering mechanisms and electronic components just as whales, bats and humans might require similar appendages for survival.

They sure do. But why then do whales have pelvises, but sharks don't? A pelvis on a whale is like finding a differential on a submarine - utterly without purpose, indicative that we're looking at a "carryover" from a terrestrial predecessor.

Common function explains some physical commonalities between organisms. But common descent explains all physical commonalities between organisms, including the ones that don't make any sense, like pelvises on whales.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Buzsaw, posted 04-16-2011 6:11 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 137 of 377 (612589)
04-17-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Jon
04-16-2011 8:34 PM


Re: A Funny Backstitch
But we're only talking about one type of design: life.

No, we're talking about designs in general. Remember? When SavageD got us on this subject by talking about putting his label on clothes that he designed?

Are clothes alive, Jon?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Jon, posted 04-16-2011 8:34 PM Jon has seen this message

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 143 of 377 (612627)
04-17-2011 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by SavageD
04-17-2011 12:32 PM


Re: common design
Explain to me how dna appears in nature through natural processes & how organisms today learnt to code & utilize dna.

Thus far, you have failed to do so.

Could that maybe be because your question is retarded and makes no sense?

Tell me, Savage, when did you "learn" to grow hair?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 12:32 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 6:46 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 172 of 377 (612793)
04-18-2011 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by SavageD
04-17-2011 6:46 PM


Re: common design
Which is my point any way, if you can't consciously make decisions to learn or do such things, how then are we able to do it?

Well, how are you able to grow hair if you never learned how?

Having eliminated those other possibilities you are then left with only one alternative, they were possibly created.

I'm not required to eliminate anything simply because you, in your ignorance, find it "preposterous." Like every other feature of organisms, the way that organisms utilize DNA came about as a result of random mutation and natural selection. These are mechanisms that have been repeatedly observed to produce intricate complexity in the natural world. Divine intervention has never been observed to produce anything at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 6:46 PM SavageD has taken no action

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 215 of 377 (612996)
04-20-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by SavageD
04-20-2011 8:15 PM


It's the norm of this forum to attack anyone who disagree with the evolution theory in numbers.

If you would like to restrict your interolocutors to a smaller number, you need only nominate whoever you'd like to interact with. Informally, in this thread you could simply ask those you don't nominate not to reply, or if you'd like that to be enforced, you can open a Great Debate topic with any individual or individuals you choose, provided they agree.

There's certainly more evolutionists here - it's a science forum, after all, where dishonesty and cheating are not allowed. Most creationists find it impossible to participate under such conditions. Regardless, if you're feeling overwhelmed you can simply say so and nominate the people you'd like to continue participating with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by SavageD, posted 04-20-2011 8:15 PM SavageD has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022